View cases - Stewart McKelvey

. \. .. ~..29Ms. Cormier testified she discussed the matter with both the Nordqvists and they had no objection.She said that Mr. Nordqvist did Ms. Cormier's tax returns and would be aware of the amount ofmoneyshe was earning as Ruby's companion. Sometimes, Mr. Nordqvist would be at the homes andwould see and talk to Ruby.Mr. Nordqvist testified that his only knowledge ofRuby was that occasionally he would see her atone ofthe properties when he happened to be there. He recalls Mrs. Nordqvist telling him that Ms.Cormier was going to be taking care ofRuby. He raised no questions at the time, but did testify thatifhe had known about the commitment oftime required, he might have been concerned.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)Mr. Nordqvist acknowledged that he might have seen her 1999 tax returns and ifhe had, he wouldhave seen her other income from being a companion for Ruby.He knew that Ruby was often on the premises with Ms. Cormier and he knew that Ms. Cormier hadmade some arrangements, but he never looked into it.Mr. Nordqvist confirmed that there was no evidence that Ms. Cormier's arrangement with Ruby wasinterfering with how Ms. Cormier was carrying out her responsibilities.Mrs. Nordqvist testified that she was never aware of any arrangement that Ms. Cormier had inrelation to being a companion for Ruby. She testified that Ms. Cormier did not have permission todrive Ruby around in the company vehicle.Whether Ms. Cormier ever expressly told the Nordqvists that she was looking after Ruby under aformal arrangement with the Department, there was no suggestion that she was hiding the fact. Herincome from the Department wouldhavebeenknown to Mr. Nordqvist and whetherherealized whatit was he would have known she was receiving separate income. His evidence was that it did notcause him any concern.